Alphax:Ricardo Klement: cameroncrazy1984: Ricardo Klement: MSNBC is clearly liberal. Token conservatives don't change that. This isn't a qualitative assessment of their coverage, just ad objective observation. Their flagship programs are hosted by people who aren't just a little liberal. In fact, they moderate their message when on-air. (I just finished Maddow's awful book "Drift". It was disappointingly poor analysis - I had expected more from her, despite knowing she was a liberal. But it was almost as painful as an Ann Coulter book.

Examples, please.

Examples of problems with her book, you mean?

Probably what he meant. I bought the book. Reading it, I wondered once again why anyone trusted Reagan with anything.

Here's one of the most irritating bits:

When it came to missile defense - Star Wars - the system couldn't possibly work. It was obvious even the dullest of individuals and even the most casual of observers. It was retarded beyond belief, and only fools and morons couldn't tell from the description that this was a complete waste of money with no ability to intercept even a single missile.

Yet the Soviets apparently don't meet that sky-high bar of intellectual giants, and were scared shiatless of having their thousands of missiles instantly rendered obsolete and useless.

They did. I haven't seen Buchanan on in a long time. But they do have Michael Steele and a few people from the McCain 2008 campaign as contributors, and Rachel frequently has interviews with fairly high-up Republicans.

bartink:skullkrusher: imontheinternet: I like Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O'Donnell, but Chris Matthews is a douche. He always has been.

eww, I can tolerate CM much more than (c)LOD. Raych (that's what I call her)... Raych is aight

O'Donnell comes off as an insufferable prick. Even when he's right he's annoying. At least Rachel is thoughtful.

exactly. Mathews can be irritating but he isn't downright irksome like LOD is. Last time I watched his show it was pretty much entirely about how he donated school supplies to kids in Africa. Yummy, nutritious school supplies.

Ricardo Klement:Alphax: Ricardo Klement: cameroncrazy1984: Ricardo Klement: MSNBC is clearly liberal. Token conservatives don't change that. This isn't a qualitative assessment of their coverage, just ad objective observation. Their flagship programs are hosted by people who aren't just a little liberal. In fact, they moderate their message when on-air. (I just finished Maddow's awful book "Drift". It was disappointingly poor analysis - I had expected more from her, despite knowing she was a liberal. But it was almost as painful as an Ann Coulter book.

Examples, please.

Examples of problems with her book, you mean?

Probably what he meant. I bought the book. Reading it, I wondered once again why anyone trusted Reagan with anything.

Here's one of the most irritating bits:

When it came to missile defense - Star Wars - the system couldn't possibly work. It was obvious even the dullest of individuals and even the most casual of observers. It was retarded beyond belief, and only fools and morons couldn't tell from the description that this was a complete waste of money with no ability to intercept even a single missile.

Yet the Soviets apparently don't meet that sky-high bar of intellectual giants, and were scared shiatless of having their thousands of missiles instantly rendered obsolete and useless.

Huh?

I don't get your objection.

Certainly the Soviet leadership saw a huge spike in military spending, and were rightly concerned. Reagan was listening to Soviet 'experts' who made it all up.

skullkrusher:bartink: skullkrusher: imontheinternet: I like Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O'Donnell, but Chris Matthews is a douche. He always has been.

eww, I can tolerate CM much more than (c)LOD. Raych (that's what I call her)... Raych is aight

O'Donnell comes off as an insufferable prick. Even when he's right he's annoying. At least Rachel is thoughtful.

exactly. Mathews can be irritating but he isn't downright irksome like LOD is. Last time I watched his show it was pretty much entirely about how he donated school supplies to kids in Africa. Yummy, nutritious school supplies.

skullkrusher:exactly. Mathews can be irritating but he isn't downright irksome like LOD is. Last time I watched his show it was pretty much entirely about how he donated school supplies to kids in Africa. Yummy, nutritious school supplies.

This made me LOL for some reason.

And yes, listening to LOD speak is more painful than slamming your hand in a car door. Twice.

tnpir:skullkrusher: exactly. Mathews can be irritating but he isn't downright irksome like LOD is. Last time I watched his show it was pretty much entirely about how he donated school supplies to kids in Africa. Yummy, nutritious school supplies.

This made me LOL for some reason.

And yes, listening to LOD speak is more painful than slamming your hand in a car door. Twice.

not that donating school supplies to kids in Africa is bad; I just was really annoyed by an entire show devoted to his own altruism so I wanted to make a joke about starvation cuz when can you laugh about starvation usually?

imontheinternet:skullkrusher: bartink: skullkrusher: imontheinternet: I like Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O'Donnell, but Chris Matthews is a douche. He always has been.

eww, I can tolerate CM much more than (c)LOD. Raych (that's what I call her)... Raych is aight

O'Donnell comes off as an insufferable prick. Even when he's right he's annoying. At least Rachel is thoughtful.

exactly. Mathews can be irritating but he isn't downright irksome like LOD is. Last time I watched his show it was pretty much entirely about how he donated school supplies to kids in Africa. Yummy, nutritious school supplies.

i watched MSNBC, mainly because maddow is one of the smartest pundits out there, and also because chris matthews is unhinged most of the time. i did feel sorry for poor steve schmidt though.

that being said, MSNBC as a whole is to fox news as a minnow is to a whale. there is virtually no comparison. they are both ostensibly news organizations, but fox is the de facto media arm of the republican party. it was conceived as such and has remained steadfastly so for nearly 20 years. MSNBC has a few liberal pundits on at night, but that's about it. their actual reportage is pretty down-the-middle.

You just described Fox News. Except Fox news is more appealing to those that care about politics and news.

The NBC program that gave MSNBC the victory was NBC Sports. They stole some of the Fox and CNN viewers that chose NFL over DNC drones. MSNBC is also lucky that Fox even covers the DNC because anything else would bring in more viewers.

Fox News should replay the 1980 and 1984 Reagan speeches and conventions and crush MSNBC on ratings.

CPennypacker:imontheinternet: skullkrusher: bartink: skullkrusher: imontheinternet: I like Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O'Donnell, but Chris Matthews is a douche. He always has been.

eww, I can tolerate CM much more than (c)LOD. Raych (that's what I call her)... Raych is aight

O'Donnell comes off as an insufferable prick. Even when he's right he's annoying. At least Rachel is thoughtful.

exactly. Mathews can be irritating but he isn't downright irksome like LOD is. Last time I watched his show it was pretty much entirely about how he donated school supplies to kids in Africa. Yummy, nutritious school supplies.

Ricardo Klement:imontheinternet: I like Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O'Donnell, but Chris Matthews is a douche. He always has been.

Maddow is ok. O'Donnell is alternatively interesting and grating. Matthews I can only stand in very small doses. The rest are too irritating.

The thing about Matthews is that, IMO, he's a genuinely earnest person who's just not that smart or perceptive. He's not an idiot or anything, he's just aggressively average. Which means he is sometimes smart and sometimes stupid.

Have you read the story about it? Both him and the other woman used the same statistics from the same book, both of them sighted the book in their articles. But because his article came out second, Newsbusters decided to say he should have cited her article because it used the same stats that his article did. Basically, the plagiarism claim was because he is attacking his old neo-con buddies and it's pissing them off because they really want to invade Iran.

Alphax:Ricardo Klement: Alphax: Ricardo Klement: cameroncrazy1984: Ricardo Klement: MSNBC is clearly liberal. Token conservatives don't change that. This isn't a qualitative assessment of their coverage, just ad objective observation. Their flagship programs are hosted by people who aren't just a little liberal. In fact, they moderate their message when on-air. (I just finished Maddow's awful book "Drift". It was disappointingly poor analysis - I had expected more from her, despite knowing she was a liberal. But it was almost as painful as an Ann Coulter book.

Examples, please.

Examples of problems with her book, you mean?

Probably what he meant. I bought the book. Reading it, I wondered once again why anyone trusted Reagan with anything.

Here's one of the most irritating bits:

When it came to missile defense - Star Wars - the system couldn't possibly work. It was obvious even the dullest of individuals and even the most casual of observers. It was retarded beyond belief, and only fools and morons couldn't tell from the description that this was a complete waste of money with no ability to intercept even a single missile.

Yet the Soviets apparently don't meet that sky-high bar of intellectual giants, and were scared shiatless of having their thousands of missiles instantly rendered obsolete and useless.

Huh?

I don't get your objection.

Certainly the Soviet leadership saw a huge spike in military spending, and were rightly concerned. Reagan was listening to Soviet 'experts' who made it all up.

My issue is that she's saying even stupid people knew SDI wasn't dangerous. But the Soviets were terrified of this non-working weapon systems. It's a contradiction of huge proportions. Do you really not see that?

WTF Indeed:Ricardo Klement: I lost a lot of respect for him over that plagiarism.

Have you read the story about it? Both him and the other woman used the same statistics from the same book, both of them sighted the book in their articles. But because his article came out second, Newsbusters decided to say he should have cited her article because it used the same stats that his article did. Basically, the plagiarism claim was because he is attacking his old neo-con buddies and it's pissing them off because they really want to invade Iran.

tnpir:skullkrusher: exactly. Mathews can be irritating but he isn't downright irksome like LOD is. Last time I watched his show it was pretty much entirely about how he donated school supplies to kids in Africa. Yummy, nutritious school supplies.

This made me LOL for some reason.

And yes, listening to LOD speak is more painful than slamming your hand in a car door. Twice.

I think it's desks and they're built locally so employing some people over there so, whatever...

O'Donnell overreaches a lot but his snark hits the target about half the time so I leave it on after Maddow if there's nothing else on. He often seems to be trying(and failing) to start a feud with O'Reilly or Hannity or Rush.

It's easier to say "I'm sorry" than "f*ck you, you moronic idiots. Go suck your boss' dick." Think about it this way, it's easier to disappear for two weeks and comeback than it is to pick a fight with an organization willing to lie.

skullkrusher:not that donating school supplies to kids in Africa is bad; I just was really annoyed by an entire show devoted to his own altruism so I wanted to make a joke about starvation cuz when can you laugh about starvation usually?

Citrate1007:Ricardo Klement: MSNBC is clearly liberal. Token conservatives don't change that. This isn't a qualitative assessment of their coverage, just ad objective observation. Their flagship programs are hosted by people who aren't just a little liberal. In fact, they moderate their message when on-air. (I just finished Maddow's awful book "Drift". It was disappointingly poor analysis - I had expected more from her, despite knowing she was a liberal. But it was almost as painful as an Ann Coulter book.

Almost.)

At least the token conservatives are allowed to make a counter-point. On Fox the tokens are just their as either straw-men or are yelled at whenever they try to speak.

Steve Schmidt is a traitorous RINO these days as far as "real conservatives" are concerned.

Ricardo Klement:Alphax: Ricardo Klement: Alphax: Ricardo Klement: cameroncrazy1984: Ricardo Klement: MSNBC is clearly liberal. Token conservatives don't change that. This isn't a qualitative assessment of their coverage, just ad objective observation. Their flagship programs are hosted by people who aren't just a little liberal. In fact, they moderate their message when on-air. (I just finished Maddow's awful book "Drift". It was disappointingly poor analysis - I had expected more from her, despite knowing she was a liberal. But it was almost as painful as an Ann Coulter book.

Examples, please.

Examples of problems with her book, you mean?

Probably what he meant. I bought the book. Reading it, I wondered once again why anyone trusted Reagan with anything.

Here's one of the most irritating bits:

When it came to missile defense - Star Wars - the system couldn't possibly work. It was obvious even the dullest of individuals and even the most casual of observers. It was retarded beyond belief, and only fools and morons couldn't tell from the description that this was a complete waste of money with no ability to intercept even a single missile.

Yet the Soviets apparently don't meet that sky-high bar of intellectual giants, and were scared shiatless of having their thousands of missiles instantly rendered obsolete and useless.

Huh?

I don't get your objection.

Certainly the Soviet leadership saw a huge spike in military spending, and were rightly concerned. Reagan was listening to Soviet 'experts' who made it all up.

My issue is that she's saying even stupid people knew SDI wasn't dangerous. But the Soviets were terrified of this non-working weapon systems. It's a contradiction of huge proportions. Do you really not see that?

Ricardo Klement:Alphax: Ricardo Klement: Alphax: Ricardo Klement: cameroncrazy1984: Ricardo Klement: MSNBC is clearly liberal. Token conservatives don't change that. This isn't a qualitative assessment of their coverage, just ad objective observation. Their flagship programs are hosted by people who aren't just a little liberal. In fact, they moderate their message when on-air. (I just finished Maddow's awful book "Drift". It was disappointingly poor analysis - I had expected more from her, despite knowing she was a liberal. But it was almost as painful as an Ann Coulter book.

Examples, please.

Examples of problems with her book, you mean?

Probably what he meant. I bought the book. Reading it, I wondered once again why anyone trusted Reagan with anything.

Here's one of the most irritating bits:

When it came to missile defense - Star Wars - the system couldn't possibly work. It was obvious even the dullest of individuals and even the most casual of observers. It was retarded beyond belief, and only fools and morons couldn't tell from the description that this was a complete waste of money with no ability to intercept even a single missile.

Yet the Soviets apparently don't meet that sky-high bar of intellectual giants, and were scared shiatless of having their thousands of missiles instantly rendered obsolete and useless.

Huh?

I don't get your objection.

Certainly the Soviet leadership saw a huge spike in military spending, and were rightly concerned. Reagan was listening to Soviet 'experts' who made it all up.

My issue is that she's saying even stupid people knew SDI wasn't dangerous. But the Soviets were terrified of this non-working weapon systems. It's a contradiction of huge proportions. Do you really not see that?

There was a meeting, after the Cold War ended, between military officials from both the US and the former Soviet union.

After the official meetings were done, and the officials themselves had been casually talking and drinking, one of the Americans ventured to ask, "Can I ask you... when did you know you'd lost the Cold War."

The Russian officials looked at each other for a moment, and then one replied,"Star Wars.""SDI? But it didn't work."

"Oh, we knew that," the Russian replied, "But we knew that if the United States was willing to spend such an incredible amount of money for no practical result, we couldn't possibly ever match that sort of financial resolve or capacity."

"So you're saying," asked the American, "That we could have simply taken that money, piled it into Times Square, burned it, and the message would have been the same?"

"Yes."

Everyone in the know knew that SDI didn't work. The difference was that the USSR was terrified they had no way to publicly counter it, and to even attempt something of that sort would bankrupt them. That's why they were terrified.

Basically, you're super butthurt about some of her hyperbole, even if she's totally correct in her history. Here's a dustvac and some wipes, you can use them to get that sand out of your vagina.

tnpir:skullkrusher: not that donating school supplies to kids in Africa is bad; I just was really annoyed by an entire show devoted to his own altruism so I wanted to make a joke about starvation cuz when can you laugh about starvation usually?

TheBeastOfYuccaFlats:Citrate1007: Ricardo Klement: MSNBC is clearly liberal. Token conservatives don't change that. This isn't a qualitative assessment of their coverage, just ad objective observation. Their flagship programs are hosted by people who aren't just a little liberal. In fact, they moderate their message when on-air. (I just finished Maddow's awful book "Drift". It was disappointingly poor analysis - I had expected more from her, despite knowing she was a liberal. But it was almost as painful as an Ann Coulter book.

Almost.)

At least the token conservatives are allowed to make a counter-point. On Fox the tokens are just their as either straw-men or are yelled at whenever they try to speak.

Steve Schmidt is a traitorous RINO these days as far as "real conservatives" are concerned.

Steve Schmidt has earned a lot of forgiveness in my book after what he went through.

TheBeastOfYuccaFlats:There was a meeting, after the Cold War ended, between military officials from both the US and the former Soviet union.

After the official meetings were done, and the officials themselves had been casually talking and drinking, one of the Americans ventured to ask, "Can I ask you... when did you know you'd lost the Cold War."

The Russian officials looked at each other for a moment, and then one replied,"Star Wars.""SDI? But it didn't work."

"Oh, we knew that," the Russian replied, "But we knew that if the United States was willing to spend such an incredible amount of money for no practical result, we couldn't possibly ever match that sort of financial resolve or capacity."

"So you're saying," asked the American, "That we could have simply taken that money, piled it into Times Square, burned it, and the message would have been the same?"

"Yes."

Everyone in the know knew that SDI didn't work. The difference was that the USSR was terrified they had no way to publicly counter it, and to even attempt something of that sort would bankrupt them. That's why they were terrified.

Basically, you're super butthurt about some of her hyperbole, even if she's totally correct in her history. Here's a dustvac and some wipes, you can use them to get that sand out of your vagina.

*facepalm*

That's my point - she's wrong when she says the Soviets were scared of SDI.

That's my point - she's wrong when she says the Soviets were scared of SDI.

No, they were scared. Not of the SDI's potential as a weapon, but, rather, what SDI represented as a fiscal / political / military policy in regards to the United States' ability to throw away money in what was, for all intents and purposes, a giant PR campaign that the Soviet political leadership would feel compelled to counter, even though it would, as stated before, bankrupt the entire USSR.

Nina_Hartley's_Ass:tnpir: skullkrusher: exactly. Mathews can be irritating but he isn't downright irksome like LOD is. Last time I watched his show it was pretty much entirely about how he donated school supplies to kids in Africa. Yummy, nutritious school supplies.

This made me LOL for some reason.

And yes, listening to LOD speak is more painful than slamming your hand in a car door. Twice.

I think it's desks and they're built locally so employing some people over there so, whatever...

O'Donnell overreaches a lot but his snark hits the target about half the time so I leave it on after Maddow if there's nothing else on. He often seems to be trying(and failing) to start a feud with O'Reilly or Hannity or Rush.

That's my point - she's wrong when she says the Soviets were scared of SDI.

No, they were scared. Not of the SDI's potential as a weapon, but, rather, what SDI represented as a fiscal / political / military policy in regards to the United States' ability to throw away money in what was, for all intents and purposes, a giant PR campaign that the Soviet political leadership would feel compelled to counter, even though it would, as stated before, bankrupt the entire USSR.

I don't know why you're having such a problem with this idea.

That's not what she said in her book. Page 95, for your reference:

"With Star Wars defense in place, the Soviets feared our nukes would hit Russia first, but then any retaliatory missiles from them would be shot out of the sky before they even entered American airspace."

Ricardo Klement:That's not what she said in her book. Page 95, for your reference:

"With Star Wars defense in place, the Soviets feared our nukes would hit Russia first, but then any retaliatory missiles from them would be shot out of the sky before they even entered American airspace."

QED

And then later realized that it wasn't going to work.

Seriously, you are very worked up about this and really, really want her to be wrong so that your "annoyance" can be justified.

TheBeastOfYuccaFlats:Ricardo Klement: That's not what she said in her book. Page 95, for your reference:

"With Star Wars defense in place, the Soviets feared our nukes would hit Russia first, but then any retaliatory missiles from them would be shot out of the sky before they even entered American airspace."

QED

And then later realized that it wasn't going to work.

Seriously, you are very worked up about this and really, really want her to be wrong so that your "annoyance" can be justified.

Give up already.

Uh, huh. I just quoted her to you and you STILL want to believe that it's not what she said.

And note I didn't say many of her facts were wrong. It was her analysis. She was largely spot-on about Grenada, although she ascribed some things to secrecy that should have been ascribed to hubris. I'm not trying to hate Maddow, but your defense of her is not well-founded.

Mrtraveler01:Chimperror2: MSNBC's Griffin about CNN Comment:" My problem with that is it doesn't give credit to what we've done," Griffin said. "That's painting in big, fat, ugly strokes and it's just not right."

Ricardo Klement:MSNBC is clearly liberal. Token conservatives don't change that. This isn't a qualitative assessment of their coverage, just ad objective observation. Their flagship programs are hosted by people who aren't just a little liberal. In fact, they moderate their message when on-air. (I just finished Maddow's awful book "Drift". It was disappointingly poor analysis - I had expected more from her, despite knowing she was a liberal. But it was almost as painful as an Ann Coulter book.

How dare you say this. There is no proof of this, and you should be ashamed. Ugh.

francisright:Ricardo Klement: MSNBC is clearly liberal. Token conservatives don't change that. This isn't a qualitative assessment of their coverage, just ad objective observation. Their flagship programs are hosted by people who aren't just a little liberal. In fact, they moderate their message when on-air. (I just finished Maddow's awful book "Drift". It was disappointingly poor analysis - I had expected more from her, despite knowing she was a liberal. But it was almost as painful as an Ann Coulter book.

How dare you say this. There is no proof of this, and you should be ashamed. Ugh.

I dare say it because it is true, as demonstrated in other comments on this subject in this thread.